> It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds.
I have no idea what this is supposed to measure, but it sounds like garbage to me. It’s literally a test of how people identify themselves (either as establishment or as a “rabble rouser”). Then arbitrarily labeling the earablishment supporters as “autboritarian.”
To see why thia question is ridiculous: Imagine asking this question to people in Tehran during the Shah. In that case, the “proper authorities” were the western-aligned Shah government, while the “rabble rousers” would be the Islamists. But it was the rabble rousers’ view that was authoritarian.
> To see why thia question is ridiculous: Imagine asking this question to people in Tehran during the Shah. In that case, the “proper authorities” were the western-aligned Shah government, while the “rabble rousers” would be the Islamists. But it was the rabble rousers’ view that was authoritarian.
This illustrates both a problem with trying to retroactively jam events into ideological frameworks, and a tragedy of revolutionary parties. At the time, the Shah's government was percieved as authoritarian - that's why there was a revolution in the first place. But it turns out that the violent overthrow of a government (internally or externally) tends to result in the new government exerting extreme force to maintain its position against ""counter-revolutionaries"". Perhaps the unique thing about the American revolution is that it wasn't followed by a Terror, and the civil war was deferred for another century by interpreting "all men are created equal" to mean "not all men".
The Shah's government being authoritarian wasn't why there was a revolution. It wasn't a revolution against authoritarianism, it was a revolution against forced westernization combined with religious reform, brutal torture of dissidents, and consolidation of wealth. It replaced these things with more conservative government and theocracy. It did that on purpose-the revolutionaries had that as their goal.
Brutal torture of dissidents and consolidation of wealth played a role for most revolutionary groups, but at the onset of the revolution in 1979 most groups were not looking for a theocracy.
The Tudeh and Fedaian were more important in finishing off the government than theocracy supporters, and even the powerful People's Mujahedin (which was Islamist) did not want a theocracy.
'Most groups' doesn't mean most people. 99.5% of people voted to make Iran an Islamic republic.
This is really simplifying a complex thing, but I would not make the claim that Tudeh was more important than theocratic supporters and even still, they supported the creation of an Islamic republic and supported Khomeini.
Yes, the MEK was Islamist, but like the other two you mentioned, they were also Marxist. They were directly opposed to the Ayatollah because he usurped their power with the poor and promoted what they saw as a bourgeoisie agenda, securing property rights and free enterprise.
"In that case, the “proper authorities” were the western-aligned Shah government, while the “rabble rousers” would be the Islamists. But it was the rabble rousers’ view that was authoritarian."
I am not sure I agree. The "proper authorities" should be understood as whoever the person answering considers "proper". So for a religious objector to Shah's government, the proper authority would be (hypothetical at the time) islamic government.
The point of the question is, some people simply don't believe in "proper authorities", and take no issue with "rabble-rousers". They will answer the question negatively in any setting.
Addendum: Altemeyer IIRC discusses this point in the book, he explains that for example in Soviet Russia, believers in the ruling party can have high RWA score, despite the fact the regime was "different" and not "right-wing" (although the latter can be disputed based on the definition of right).
On its own, it's not supposed to measure anything. There's more than 1 question in the survey for a reason. And incidentally, the questions that people are most likely to criticize -- the first two -- aren't even used in the assessment; they're throw-aways.
> To see why thia question is ridiculous: Imagine asking this question to people in Tehran during the Shah. In that case, the “proper authorities” were the western-aligned Shah government, while the “rabble rousers” would be the Islamists. But it was the rabble rousers’ view that was authoritarian.
From chapter 1 of the book in which this scale was introduced: the test, which was designed to measure right-wing authoritarianism in North America, will probably fall apart in markedly different cultures.
That same chapter goes on to directly address almost all of the criticisms I'm seeing in this thread.
I think it's wrong to construe one measure of "right-wing" (explicitly not "conservative") authoritarianism with "authoritarianism" generally, as the title of this piece does. But there's nothing wrong with designing assessments that are intended to work only in one particular culture.
The question I quoted was not one of the two throw-aways. Even with the caveats you mentioned, this survey does not actually measure authoritarianism in any meaningful way. Take three of the things addressed in the questioning: animal rights, abortion, and LGBT rights. You can frame any of these things to make both sides seem “authoritarian” or anti-authoritarian. For example, public accomodation laws can be viewed as an impingement on the right to freedom of association, or a vindication of the right to participate in the economy free of discrimination. Abortion restrictions can be viewed as vindiction of the fetus’s right to life, or an impingement on the mother’s bodily autonomy. The article simply picks a framing for each issue, and labels the conservative point of view “authoritarian.”
But in reality, these disputes aren’t about authoritariansm versus non-authoritariansim. Both sides believe that the government may restrict the natural freedom people would have in the state of nature to protect certain things that society recognizes as “rights.” These disputes are about what rights society is willing to recognize and enforce, and what to do when those rights conflict.
> The survey falsely portrays these disputes as being about “authoritarianism” versus (presumably), “non-authoritarianism.”
You seem to feel that this survey is a definition about individuals? That's not how the survey is intended to be used, and the fist chapter of the book that introduces it is full of caveats that the survey is not intended to be treated as a definition about individuals.
The author of the survey is very explicitly NOT providing a definition of authoritarianism or a litmus test for individuals. He is providing a survey whose scores correlate with right-wing authoritarianism in North America in the late 20th century.
The survey is a tool, the author of the tool is very explicit about what that tool is and is not for. I, for one, don't get angry when my hammers don't work as screw drivers. And also don't get angry at the inventor of the hammer when some random third party messes up my stuff by using a hammer on my screws...
> Take three of the things addressed in the questioning: animal rights, abortion, and LGBT rights
The survey is designed to measure RIGHT-WING Authoritarianism. That is, the conjunct of being both authoritarian and also right-wing in that authoritarianism.
If we asked 20 questions about authoritarianism but never mentioned anything about being right-wing, we might have a good test for authoritarianism but not a good test for RIGHT-WING authoritarianism...
I’m not assuming this survey is a definition about individuals. The survey takes the beliefs of a group (conservative christians) and simply labels them “authoritarian.”
As to your point about right-wing versus left-wing authoritarianism: you’re missing the point. Imagine a counter-part to this test that labeled support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as “left-wing authoritarianism.” Technically, yes, that law restricts the freedom of individuals to conduct their business and associate with people according to their own choices. But labeling that “authoritarianism” would (I think rightly) be perceived as biased by most liberals. The article makes exactly the same mistake. It takes a lot of views and unfairly labels them “authoritarian.”
> The article makes exactly the same mistake. It takes a lot of views and unfairly labels them “authoritarian.”
And as I said in my original post:
"I think it's wrong to construe one measure of "right-wing" (explicitly not "conservative") authoritarianism with "authoritarianism" generally, as the title of this piece does. But there's nothing wrong with designing assessments that are intended to work only in one particular culture."
> The survey takes the beliefs of a group (conservative Christians) and simply labels them “authoritarian."
No, it doesn't, and I think that's an unfair characterization of conservative Christians.
1. I only count 11 items that say anything at all about conservative Christian beliefs. The other 9 are totally orthogonal. Even if we score those items -4 (which most conservative Christians wouldn't; see item 2) and the other items +4, we end up in the low 100s. And more realistic answers typical of non-authoritarian conservative Christians in the midwest end up with scores in the 90s (again, see item 2).
2. of those 11 items that make reference to "Christian/family/traditional values", many would not elicit a "strong" score from all or even most conservative Christians following the survey's instructions.
Example 1: "Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else."
Most conservative Christians will strong-disagree with "sexual preferences".
But what about "lifestyle" and "religious beliefs"? Many conservative Christians support different lifestyles; e.g., homeschooling. And a STRONG majority support religious freedom.
According to the survey's instructions, which tell use to average the -4 re: homosexuality with +N for the other two items, this question would elicit a weak disagree or maybe even a weak agree from many conservative Christians.
Example 2: "God's laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished."
Many conservative Christians believe that divorce should be legal and pornography, though damaging, should not be outlawed. So using the survey's averaging rule, this might even end up as a "weak disagree".
And there are many questions that ask for moral comparisons between "traditional" and "non-traditional" people, but the bible is very clear on exactly this question: we are not justified by our acts.
It is true that there is a certain brand of conservative Christian who believe we should have a "strong leader" who uses the state to forcibly impose their personal conservative values on the rest of society. Those people would score highly on this test. But that set of people is definitely not the same as the set of "conservative Christians", because many "conservative Christians" have non-authoritarian values (and many right-wing authoritarians are not Christian.)
> As to your point about right-wing versus left-wing authoritarianism: you’re missing the point. Imagine a counter-part to this test that labeled support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as “left-wing authoritarianism.”
Exactly zero questions in this survey mention a piece of legislation, and not a single question on this test automatically labels RWA for agreeing with a given piece of legislation. There are multiple types of questions for a reason.
There exist left-wing authoritarian tests. And yes, they do ask questions about typical left-wing issues. And yes, they should. Because measuring LEFT-WING authoritarianism without even bothering to ask if someone's beliefs are consistently left-wing would be silly and would miss the point...
Maybe DeMorgan can help. A low (L or R)WA score just means:
NOT (LR-wing AND authoritarian) == NOT LR-wing OR NOT authoritarian.
A below-average score could mean (LR-wing AND NOT authoritarian).
A below-average score could mean (NOT LR-wing AND authoritarian).
A below-average score could mean (NOT LR-wing AND NOT authoritarian).
A low LR-WA score does not imply "not authoritarian". It implies "not authoritarian in this particular way". A very high score indicates "authoritarian in this particular way". Borderline scores could mean "authoritarian but not in this way" or "this way but not authoritarian".
Survey design is difficult, and interpreting survey results is also difficult. A survey designed to measure the intersection of two properties will give higher scores to people who have one of those properties than people who have zero of those properties. That does not mean the survey is flawed; it means that the results have to be used with this effect in mind.
>Important: You may find that you sometimes have different reactions to different parts of a statement. For example, you might very strongly disagree (“-4”) with one idea in a statement, but slightly agree (“+1”) with another idea in the same item. When this happens, please combine your reactions, and [record] how you feel on balance (a “-3” in this case).
I have no idea what this is supposed to measure, but it sounds like garbage to me. It’s literally a test of how people identify themselves (either as establishment or as a “rabble rouser”). Then arbitrarily labeling the earablishment supporters as “autboritarian.”
To see why thia question is ridiculous: Imagine asking this question to people in Tehran during the Shah. In that case, the “proper authorities” were the western-aligned Shah government, while the “rabble rousers” would be the Islamists. But it was the rabble rousers’ view that was authoritarian.